New York City public sector employees challenged the constitutionality of the City's COVID-19 vaccination mandate for school staff, arguing it violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. This appeal consolidated two cases: one from the Southern District of New York involving plaintiffs who had previously challenged the mandate in Kane v. De Blasio, and another from the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions to reinstate the mandate and obtain backpay, and challenged the City's religious exemption process, which was revised following a prior Second Circuit order in Kane I. The district courts had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, ruling that the mandate was constitutional and that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or plausible claims regarding the exemption process. The City had since rescinded the mandate, but the plaintiffs argued they remained entitled to backpay and relief for past constitutional violations.
The Second Circuit addressed three primary issues. First, regarding the request to rescind the mandate, the court found the issue moot because the City officially rescinded the mandate in February 2023, and there was no reasonable expectation of its reinstatement. Second, regarding reinstatement and backpay, the court denied the preliminary injunction on the merits. The court held that while the threat of discharge can constitute irreparable harm in the First Amendment context, the plaintiffs here had already been terminated or resigned at the time of their motions. Consequently, their harm was compensable through backpay rather than irreparable, and they could not show the specific present objective harm required for injunctive relief. Third, the court affirmed the dismissal of facial challenges. Under the precedent of Kane I, the mandate is neutral and generally applicable, so facial challenges are subject to rational basis review, which the plaintiffs failed to meet. The court also rejected Establishment Clause claims, finding the plaintiffs offered only conclusory allegations that the Citywide Panel favored certain religions or acted with animus, without pleading specific facts to support those claims. Finally, the court addressed as-applied challenges. While most plaintiffs failed to state claims because the Citywide Panel found their accommodations would cause undue hardship to the school system, the court identified two exceptions. For Natasha Solon, the court found she plausibly pleaded that her initial exemption denial was based on unconstitutional standards that disfavored personal religious beliefs. For Heather Clark, the court found she plausibly alleged her exemption was denied because the Panel characterized her beliefs as too idiosyncratic to be religious, rather than determining they were not sincerely held. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing these claims without applying the strict scrutiny standard required for individualized denials of religious exemptions.
The decision leaves the facial constitutionality of the NYC vaccine mandate intact but requires the lower court to re-examine the specific exemption denials for Natasha Solon and Heather Clark. The lower court must now apply strict scrutiny to determine if the City's exemption process was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest for these two plaintiffs. The ruling clarifies that while general challenges to the mandate fail, individualized denials based on the nature of the belief itself, rather than undue hardship, may violate the First Amendment. The request for reinstatement of the mandate is moot, and the plaintiffs' claims for backpay for those already terminated remain subject to the district court's further proceedings on the remanded issues.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download